Castles & Crusades standing the test
- Thread starter Mythmere1
- Start date
Well, my group is now game back on, after discussions. My players are good - they just tend to a different set of priorities in RP than I do. From my side one thing that I learned from my own posting is to remember that the wargaming side is crucial to player survival, and that if they don't feel that there's a set of clear rules, it will scare them.
So with that in mind, I'm going to shoot for a clearer set of house rules for the wargame side. With something clearer, they may be more comfortable that the rest is arbitrated.
My oldest player also pointed out something that may be cautionary for others switching to C&C from a 3E set of characters. At high level, it's your attachment to the characters that makes slow advancement not a problem. Just switching over with quick-advanced 3E characters not only gives you the system shock but if it's high level it also makes you feel that you just got stuck in an advancement quagmire with a character that doesn't have the depth of history that a C&C character would at that level.
Try it with lower level characters. The transition will work better.
So with that in mind, I'm going to shoot for a clearer set of house rules for the wargame side. With something clearer, they may be more comfortable that the rest is arbitrated.
My oldest player also pointed out something that may be cautionary for others switching to C&C from a 3E set of characters. At high level, it's your attachment to the characters that makes slow advancement not a problem. Just switching over with quick-advanced 3E characters not only gives you the system shock but if it's high level it also makes you feel that you just got stuck in an advancement quagmire with a character that doesn't have the depth of history that a C&C character would at that level.
Try it with lower level characters. The transition will work better.
Breakdaddy
First Post
Glad to see you worked it out with yer players, mythmere! Hope the game goes more smoothly for everyone involved in the future.
bolie
First Post
I'm one of Mythmere's players...
I would like to clarify... as players, I don't think the problem is that we don't get the intent of C&C. The problem is we don't like the intent of C&C. As a group, we didn't particularly enjoy getting bogged down looking up scads of rules and taking an entire session for one combat. BUT... that doesn't mean we wanted to go the other way where the game turned into a storytelling adventure with rules that are intentionally vague.
One of things we're going to work on is developing some house rules that give us more options but that hopefully don't bog us down or make more work for Mythmere.
The C&C PH has problems. We get bogged down by things like the lack fo any guidance on how many spells a Wizard gets in his spell book and what the heck a Cestus or Aclis is. There are no descriptions of equipment. Then we wonder how spells like Ray of Enfeeblement work on monsters who have no Strength score.
We've worked out our own answers for most of that, but the point is that some of these do require answers and I would rather not have to make up rules to make the game work.
And Mythmere... given your apparent fascination with minis and map aids, I'm surprised you don't prefer the wargaming rules.
I'm not criticising, I love the scenery and minis.
We should think about trying Fudge or the Storyteller system...
Bolie IV
I would like to clarify... as players, I don't think the problem is that we don't get the intent of C&C. The problem is we don't like the intent of C&C. As a group, we didn't particularly enjoy getting bogged down looking up scads of rules and taking an entire session for one combat. BUT... that doesn't mean we wanted to go the other way where the game turned into a storytelling adventure with rules that are intentionally vague.
One of things we're going to work on is developing some house rules that give us more options but that hopefully don't bog us down or make more work for Mythmere.
The C&C PH has problems. We get bogged down by things like the lack fo any guidance on how many spells a Wizard gets in his spell book and what the heck a Cestus or Aclis is. There are no descriptions of equipment. Then we wonder how spells like Ray of Enfeeblement work on monsters who have no Strength score.
We've worked out our own answers for most of that, but the point is that some of these do require answers and I would rather not have to make up rules to make the game work.
And Mythmere... given your apparent fascination with minis and map aids, I'm surprised you don't prefer the wargaming rules.
I'm not criticising, I love the scenery and minis.
We should think about trying Fudge or the Storyteller system...
Bolie IV
C&C netbook of classes at http://www.geocities.com/legendsoftheland/crusades.html
I don't dislike the wargaming side (I do love minis). One can play a wargame lite or heavy, and I do want to nail down reliable house rules for the wargaming side. If the combat side doesn't function as a good wargame, then it's a different game. But a lite wargame permits more narration of what's going on (that's just me and my capability). It's also faster paced and finished more quickly. This gives more time for interaction with the world, but I fully support the wargame side.
As to the approach and the intent of the game, it gives me a better platform to run a game the way I want to run it. It's not a storytelling session; what I mean by roleplaying with wargaming, as opposed to wargaming with roleplaying, is that C&C supports a more narrated style by the GM, with less reference to rules and more GM "rule calls." That's all, but it's a huge difference. The fact that we don't have half-dragons and such is not really due to C&C - I'd rule 0 that in 3E too, if it wouldn't throw everything off.
Now, that's not to say that it's illegitimate to play wargaming-with-roleplaying. It's just not my game. C&C lets me manage the action better.
Our last session was very good, I thought. I had fun, anyway.
As to the approach and the intent of the game, it gives me a better platform to run a game the way I want to run it. It's not a storytelling session; what I mean by roleplaying with wargaming, as opposed to wargaming with roleplaying, is that C&C supports a more narrated style by the GM, with less reference to rules and more GM "rule calls." That's all, but it's a huge difference. The fact that we don't have half-dragons and such is not really due to C&C - I'd rule 0 that in 3E too, if it wouldn't throw everything off.
Now, that's not to say that it's illegitimate to play wargaming-with-roleplaying. It's just not my game. C&C lets me manage the action better.
Our last session was very good, I thought. I had fun, anyway.
catenwolde
Explorer
Wargaming
My other main hobby is miniature wargaming - I probably have 5-6000 figures and counting in various periods from Late Rome to WWII. Trust me, there is just as much argument in "real" wargaming about "detailed/complete versus abstract/lite" rules as there is in rpg's! The same problems, too, i.e. try and play Hastings at 1:10 with complex rules, and require a month of saturdays to do it, or play it with 12 elements per side in 1 hour, or anywhere in between.
It's a style thing, baby.
My other main hobby is miniature wargaming - I probably have 5-6000 figures and counting in various periods from Late Rome to WWII. Trust me, there is just as much argument in "real" wargaming about "detailed/complete versus abstract/lite" rules as there is in rpg's! The same problems, too, i.e. try and play Hastings at 1:10 with complex rules, and require a month of saturdays to do it, or play it with 12 elements per side in 1 hour, or anywhere in between.
It's a style thing, baby.
Similar Threads
